<div><div dir="auto">Would such a meeting have to be in secret session?</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:31 PM Nicholas Sarwark <<a href="mailto:chair@lp.org">chair@lp.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On the parliamentary question:<br>
<br>
If there is going to be an email ballot, the motion would at least<br>
need to say "for cause" and would be better to state with clarity what<br>
the cause is, since there is only the option for members to vote for<br>
or against it without the potential for amendment. Members should be<br>
aware that there is an appellate procedure in the case of a suspension<br>
and that an appellate body would generally be looking to whether the<br>
appropriate procedure has been followed in deciding whether to<br>
overturn a suspension.<br>
<br>
In the case of a call for an electronic meeting, the subject of<br>
suspension would be sufficient to call the meeting, with cause being<br>
able to be discussed, debated, and attached to any final motion before<br>
voting. As a note, it requires 1/3 of the committee to request an<br>
electronic meeting, so it requires six members to request, not the<br>
four that are required for an email ballot.<br>
<br>
-Nick<br>
<br>
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos<br>
<<a href="mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org" target="_blank">caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> I have several concerns here.<br>
><br>
> And to point out one detail for party members reporting on this incident who<br>
> - inadvertantly I am sure - omitted the fact that I personally - a radical<br>
> anarchist - am willing to co-sponsor this motion, thus making four, but only<br>
> have not because I am awaiting the go ahead from my region. I don't need a<br>
> 2/3 to just co-sponsor, and I am getting more comfortable with it now that<br>
> two of my states are in favour of removal. CO and WA may have a decision<br>
> soon. And in reflecting on this, I am seeing my way clear to co-sponsor as<br>
> long as some of my states believe it needs a hearing. That protects<br>
> minority voices.<br>
><br>
> This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart. But then again,<br>
> Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit for tat, I<br>
> can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout is fair play.<br>
> We need to stop that culture. Now.<br>
><br>
> But to my concerns. I have been reading more in RONR and I think the motion<br>
> is improper for the reasons I stated before. It must state a cause.<br>
> Further, I do not think it CAN be handled by email, and I think it MUST (if<br>
> it has enough co-sponsors - or at a meeting - a second) take the form of a<br>
> trial - in executive session. I don't like secret sessions but that is my<br>
> reading of RONR, and it doesn't seem like it can be suspended - though it<br>
> seems that the subject of the discipline could waive that.<br>
><br>
> I would like the Chair to weigh in on my objection to this Motion as being<br>
> out of order without a stated cause. That being said, I do have some<br>
> proposed cause language.<br>
><br>
> Members reading this. Do not allow anyone to put you into a mentality of<br>
> purging anyone. Moderate, Radical, or otherwise. Our binding factor is the<br>
> Statement of Principles. Inciting a hate movement against Johnson<br>
> supporters is counterprodutive and just flat out wrong. The same is true<br>
> for Party radicals and anarchists. This is insane.<br>
><br>
> -Caryn Ann<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <<a href="mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org" target="_blank">caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> One of my states has requested the "cause" language for consideration.<br>
>><br>
>> -Caryn Ann<br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org" target="_blank">caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> I spoke with the Chair of HI. She supports removal. Region 1: Utah<br>
>>> (no); Arizona (recused entirely); Alaska (yes); Hawaii (yes).<br>
>>><br>
>>> Some may object that I have influenced some with my personal opinion. I<br>
>>> don't have that much power. But this is where the issue of us being elected<br>
>>> for our insight and judgment comes into play - the Chairs want my advice.<br>
>>> They can take it or not, but they want it. And I advise them on how to<br>
>>> protect their own state if the LNC does nothing. That is my job.<br>
>>><br>
>>> As promised, this is what Alaska wrote to me:<br>
>>><br>
>>> After discussion with our state board, it is our view that Arvin Vohra<br>
>>> should be removed from the position of Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party.<br>
>>> On an intellectual level, some logic may exist in his arguments, however the<br>
>>> topics and conclusions he forwards repeatedly result in discredit to the LP.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> This cannot continue.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Our leaders must be ambassadors as well as philosophers. One role cannot<br>
>>> exist at the expense of the other. The LP is not a hermetic association for<br>
>>> the advanced study of arcane philosophical concepts, but a political<br>
>>> organization with the intent to guide and influence our government and<br>
>>> citizenry. All political correctness aside, earning the credibility to do<br>
>>> this comes at the cost of tailoring our message to our audience, the<br>
>>> American people. Mr. Vohra does not, or perhaps cannot understand this<br>
>>> fundamental constraint.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> -Caryn Ann<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org" target="_blank">caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> FYI - LPCO has an open email list. Its time we heard the voices of our<br>
>>>> members - anyone can follow their discussion<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> <a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugbr1A" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugbr1A</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos<br>
>>>> <<a href="mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org" target="_blank">caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Thank you Joshua, I am flattered that some of my words were persuasive.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Let me argue more in favour of a meeting. If this motion got four<br>
>>>>> co-sponsors and went to email vote, I am not going to have full word from<br>
>>>>> region 1 in ten days. Not gonna happen. So even though I suspect they will<br>
>>>>> not favour, this guarantees that there will be no region 1 support. A<br>
>>>>> meeting can give more time and can allow me to let the region know they can<br>
>>>>> attend for public comment.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> (states have told me that they have to wait for a board meeting). I<br>
>>>>> have three definite responses. AZ asked to be recused. AK is in favour of<br>
>>>>> suspension (and I will be forwarding their missive to me here). UT opposes.<br>
>>>>> The CO chair supports but the rest of the Board has not weighed in (FYI I<br>
>>>>> recused myself from the LPCO Board discussion).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Joshua Katz<br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:planning4liberty@gmail.com" target="_blank">planning4liberty@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I have stated my preference for an electronic meeting. I also said in<br>
>>>>>> that email that this is the second time this has come up, and it needs a<br>
>>>>>> full hearing. Since then, I have read emails from Ms. Harlos and from Mr.<br>
>>>>>> Sharpe which have called some of my beliefs on this topic into question. I<br>
>>>>>> still am strongly inclined to vote no, but I have been convinced that<br>
>>>>>> consideration is due. I believe motions get clearer and better<br>
>>>>>> consideration when they are actually pending - there is a difference,<br>
>>>>>> psychologically, between speaking in general, and speaking on a precise<br>
>>>>>> motion. (On a side note, I agree with Ms. Harlos that this motion would be<br>
>>>>>> better if it specified the cause, although I do not think this is<br>
>>>>>> necessary.) Therefore, I will cosponsor.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> However, I am cosponsoring on the following understanding, and I ask<br>
>>>>>> the Secretary to correct me if my understanding is incorrect. According to<br>
>>>>>> RONR, the maker of a motion may not speak against it in debate (but may vote<br>
>>>>>> against it), but the seconder may speak against it in debate. Our email<br>
>>>>>> ballots generally list everyone who wished to see the motion, the original<br>
>>>>>> maker and the cosponsors, as "cosponsors." That notwithstanding, it is my<br>
>>>>>> understanding that a cosponsor is in the position of a seconder and may<br>
>>>>>> speak in debate against the motion.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Joshua A. Katz<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn<br>
>>>>>> <<a href="mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org" target="_blank">elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> I make a motion to suspend Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice<br>
>>>>>>> Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> ___________________________________________________________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Three of the four state affiliate chairs in Region 3 are now backing<br>
>>>>>>> this motion. I told Region 3 that I'd need at least 3/4 of the region in<br>
>>>>>>> accord to make the motion to suspend Arvin. That percent was reached last<br>
>>>>>>> night.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> When I volunteered my time and energy to be a Regional Rep on the<br>
>>>>>>> LNC, I didn't do it under the circumstances of, "only if convenient".<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> I'm doing this because I care about giving a voice to the many LP<br>
>>>>>>> members who are running for office, getting out the vote, and spending their<br>
>>>>>>> hard-earned money working toward electing libertarians.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> These are the people that make up the Libertarian Party. It is their<br>
>>>>>>> voice that I represent.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> So, it is with calm resolve that I make this motion.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn<br>
>>>>>>> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)<br>
>>>>>>> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana<br>
>>>>>>> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee<br>
>>>>>>> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus<br>
>>>>>>> <a href="http://www.lpcaucus.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.lpcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list<br>
>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
>>>>>>> <a href="http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business</a><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
>>>>>> <a href="http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business</a><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Lnc-business mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>